This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 22 November 2014, At: 10:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Self‐perceived competenceof general educatorsparticipating in collaborationactivities: A survey ofpreservice educatorsRegina M. Foley a , Selestine B. Skipper b ,Carolyn M. Cowley c & Carol A. Angell aa Educational Psychology and Special Education ,Southern Illinois University , Carbondaleb Chicago Public Schools ,c Rockwood School District , Eureka, MissouriPublished online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Regina M. Foley , Selestine B. Skipper , Carolyn M. Cowley& Carol A. Angell (1997) Self‐perceived competence of general educatorsparticipating in collaboration activities: A survey of preservice educators, TheTeacher Educator, 33:2, 112-123, DOI: 10.1080/08878739709555164

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878739709555164

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be

independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

SELF-PERCEIVED COMPETENCE OF GENERALEDUCATORS PARTICIPATING INCOLLABORATION ACTIVITIES:

A SURVEY OF PRESERVICE EDUCATORS

Regina M. FoleyEducational Psychology and Special Education

Southern Illinois University at CarbondaleSelestine B. Skipper

Chicago Public SchoolsCarolyn M. Cowley

Rockwood School District, Eureka, MissouriCarol A. Angell

Educational Psychology and Special EducationSouthern Illinois University at Carbondale

AbstractCollaboration between general and special educators appears to beassuming more significance in the coordination and delivery ofeducational and related services to students with disabilities in generaleducation settings. However, little data exists describing the competenceof preservice general educators to participate in the collaboration process.The purpose of this study was to survey preservice general educatorsenrolled in a core teacher education program course to determineself-perceived levels of competence regarding their participation in schooland community-based collaboration activities. Responses from the 178preservice general education teacher trainees who volunteered to completethe survey indicated that they perceived themselves to be below averagefor a majority of the identified collaboration skills. Implications forteacher preparation are discussed.

Collaboration between general and special educators to coordinateand deliver educational services to students with disabilities ingeneral education settings appears to be steadily increasing. Theenhanced role of collaboration in educational services has beenstimulated by two educational reform efforts. The first effort was theRegular Education Initiative (REI), which promulgates that studentswith mild disabilities remain in general education settings with

112

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

support from special education (Will, 1986), and the second is thedevelopment of programs that integrate all students with disabilitiesin general education classes for the majority of their instruction,which is commonly referred to as inclusion (National Association ofState Boards of Education, 1992).

Collaboration has been defined as "a style for direct interactionbetween at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shareddecision making as they work toward a common goal" (Friend andCook, 1996, p. 6). A number of alternative collaborative approacheshave been identified to guide the delivery of education to diversestudent populations by (a) providing collégial support in solvingclassroom problems (Johnson and Pugach, 1991; Johnson, Pugach,and Cook, 1993; Pugach and Johnson, 1995), (b) assisting in thedesign and delivery of classroom instruction to diverse student popu-lations through co-teaching (Bauwens, Hourcade, and Friend, 1989;Dieker and Barnett, 1996) and interdisciplinary teacher teamstructures (Friend and Cook, 1996; Maclver and Epstein, 1991), and(c) developing, implementing, and coordinating a comprehensive setof services between school and community resources (e.g., mentalhealth, juvenile justice) to meet the diverse educational and socialneeds of students with learning and behavioral difficulties (Epstein etal., 1993; Knitzer, 1993; Peacock Hill Working Group [Kauffman etal.], 1991; Skrtic and Sailor, 1996).

Researchers have focused on the development of a common setof essential collaboration and teaching practices necessary for bothgeneral and special educators to effectively engage in collaborativeactivities. The initial research efforts centered on the identificationof consultation collaboration competencies. West and Cannon(1988) utilized a Delphi procedure to identify 47 consultationcollaboration competencies for general and special educators in 8categories: (a) Consultation Theory, (b) Research on ConsultationTheory, Training, and Practice, (c) Personal Characteristics,(d) Interactive Communication, (e) Collaborative Problem Solving,(0 Systems Change, (g) Equity Issues and Values/Beliefs Systems,and (h) Evaluation of Consultation Effectiveness. A continuation ofthat line of research concentrated on identifying essential teachingcompetencies that both general and special educators must have toengage in collaborative activities. In a two-round Delphi survey, 200members of an expert panel of teachers, school administrators,program supervisors, teacher educators, and researchers (half fromgeneral education, half from special education) were asked to rate theimportance of 93 statements describing critical knowledge, skills, and

113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

attitudes drawn from research on and practices of effective teachersfor general and special educators respectively (Cannon, Idol, andWest, 1992). The 93 statements were organized into 6 categories:(a) Assessment/Diagnosis, (b) Instructional Content, (c) InstructionalPractices, (d) Managing Student Behavior, (e) Planning andManaging the Teaching and Learning Environment, and(f) Monitoring/Evaluation Procedures. Seventy-nine of 93 statementswere identified as essential competencies needed by both general andspecial educators to engage in collaborative efforts.

Research examining the level of competence of regular andspecial educators participating in collaborative activities has been pri-marily limited to inservice special educators in elementary andsecondary schools. In a survey of elementary and secondary schoolgeneral and special educators, general educators perceived specialeducators to be less skillful as consultants than did principals orresource teachers themselves in four identified skill areas: evaluatinginterventions, including teachers as equal partners, schedulingconferences with teachers, and resource teachers' abilities to explaintheir perceptions of the problem (Friend, 1984). Other studies of thecompetence of special educators to participate in collaborative inter-actions has suggested that special educators perceive themselves to bewithin the average to above average range of skill for a majority of theidentified collaboration competencies (Foley, 1994, 1995; Foley,Mundschenk, and Miller, 1993) with particular strengths in the areasof establishing mutual trust (Foley, 1994; Foley et al., 1993), definingproblems in behavioral terminology, and utilizing interviewing strate-gies to define a problem (Foley et al., 1993).

In contrast, it appears that regular educators perceived themselvesto be minimally skilled at engaging in collaborative interactions withcolleagues. In a nationwide survey of veteran secondary schoolregular educators, the findings indicated that general educatorsperceived their competence for a majority of the skills to be withindie below average to average range (Foley & Mundschenk, 1995).Strengths of the educators' collaboration skills were in theestablishment of working relationships, communication skills (i.e.,paraphrasing, use of statements and questions), and conflictresolution. On the other hand, the survey respondents indicated theestablishment of working relationships with community serviceproviders to be among their weakest collaboration skills.

Such findings may have intensified calls for adding collaborationtraining to both general and special education teacher preparationprograms (Paul, Epanchin, Roselli, and Duchnowski, 1996;

114

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Simpson, Whelan, and Zabel, 1993; West and Cannon, 1988). In areview of the issues and strategies for the preparation of educators inthe 21st century, Simpson et al. (1993) suggested that teacher prepa-ration programs utilize school and community-based services andresources and include preparation to engage in the collaborationprocess as a means of developing and coordinating educationalprograms for students with diverse needs. However, little data existsto describe the collaboration skill development of preservice generaleducation trainees.

The purpose of this study was to survey preservice general educa-tors to determine their self-perceived level of competence for partici-pating in collaboration-based educational activities. The volunteerswere asked to rate their level of professional competence for 25 previ-ously identified collaboration skills. It is anticipated that the data willbe a valuable guide for teacher educators reviewing and revising thecompetencies of their teacher preparation programs.

Method

Subjects

The subjects were 178 undergraduate education majors whovolunteered to participate in the study. All respondents were enrolledin a core course of the teacher preparation program in a largemidwestern university. Of the 178 students, 95 students wereelementary education majors and the remaining 83 students weresecondary education majors. Nearly three-fourths (71.7%) of therespondents identified as elementary education majors reported beingclassified as seniors (more than 86 earned credit hours) with 25%indicating their class standing as juniors (56 to 85 earned credithours) and 3.3% as sophomores (26 to 55 earned credit hours).Likewise, a majority of the secondary education majors were alsoclassified as seniors (64.8%) with 33.8% reporting themselves to bejuniors and 1.4% as sophomores.

InstrumentThe instrument was developed from a review of the

competencies identified from a number of sources including severalconsultation/collaboration training programs (e.g., Idol and West,1988), previously conducted surveys (e.g., Friend, 1984; West andCannon, 1988), and consultation/collaboration literature. The surveyinstrument consisted of three sections: Knowledge of Collaboration,

115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Collaboration Skills, and Background Information. The Knowledgeof Collaboration section included seven statements directed atassessing the respondent's knowledge of collaboration principles andactivities. Examples of questions included in this section were"Identifying consultation and collaboration models" and "Identifyingsituations in which potential conflicts may arise within the collabora-tion group." The second section included 18 statements addressingcollaboration skills such as "Implementing strategies to assessstudents' needs for community agency services" and "Usingparaphrasing techniques to assure the other person is correctly under-stood." For each statement, the survey participants were asked to ratethemselves on die degree of their own knowledge or skill for eachitem on a five-point Likert scale (1 = no knowledge/skill; 5 = superiorknowledge/skill). The final section of the survey requesteddemographic information from the volunteers, including their acad-emic majors and their current class standing in the university.

ProceduresThe surveys were completed by the volunteers at the initial class

meeting of an education core course for one academic year (fall,spring, and summer semesters). The participants were told that thesurvey was not part of the class requirements and that their decisioneither to participate or not would not have any reflection on the eval-uation of their performance in the course. To assure confidentiality ofresponses, participants were asked not to provide any identifyinginformation on the surveys (e.g., name, identification number).

Results

Table 1 shows the mean ratings of preservice elementary and sec-ondary educators' self-perceived evaluations of how professionallycompetent they were to participate in collaboration activities.Overall, elementary and secondary school preservice educatorsperceived themselves to have less than average knowledge and skill fora majority of the identified knowledge and skill competencies neces-sary to participate in collaborative activities. No significantdifferences were reported between elementary and secondaryeducation majors.

Elementary education majors perceived their collaborationstrengths to be in two major areas: the ability to establish trust and tocommunicate effectively with others (e.g., using questions and state-ments to provide, seek, and clarify information). In contrast, elemen-

116

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

tary education preservice educators indicated that their professionalweaknesses were related to dieir knowledge of consultation/collabora-tion models, their ability to identify information needs for die collab-orative process, and their skill at developing sequential action plans tocoordinate services among multiple agencies.

Secondary education majors identified their ability to establishmutual trust with other individuals and to implement strategies toresolve conflict within collaborative groups as their professionalstrengths for engaging in collaborative processes. Similar toelementary education majors, secondary education preservice educa-tors reported their weaknesses to include knowledge ofconsultation/collaboration models and their ability to participate col-laboratively in interagency coordination efforts (e.g., developing asequential action plan to coordinate services among agencies, identi-fying plans to zssess specific agency policies and services).

Discussion

Collaboration has been identified as an approach to designing,coordinating, and implementing instructional activities and servicesto meet the educational needs of a diverse student population (Friendand Cook, 1996; Laycock, Gable, and Korinek, 1991; West and Idol,1990). Generally, it appears that preservice general educators, both inelementary and secondary education programs, perceived themselvesto have less than average levels of competence for actively engaging incollaboration-based activities. Similar results were reported for anearlier study of inservice secondary school general educators (Foleyand Mundschenk, 1995). The consistency of the findings suggeststhat teacher education programs may not be directly addressing thecollaboration training needs of general educators.

Both elementary and secondary school preservice educators iden-tified establishing trust as a professional strength in their repertoire ofcollaboration skills. Personal attributes such as trust and empathyhave been long regarded and reported as characteristics of qualityteachers (Hamachek, 1969). Thus, preservice general educators mayview trust as a generic professional skill that applies across multiplesituations in the field of education.

The second identified self-perceived strength of the preserviceeducators was communication skills. The teaching process is based onone's ability to communicate effectively with students. In a summaryof effective teaching practices, the importance of providing detailedand redundant explanations, checking students' understanding

117

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Preservice GeneralEducators' Ratings of Their Self-Perceived Competence

to Engage in Collaborative Interactions

Self-Perceived RatingsElementary Secondary

M SD M SD

Identifying consultation and collaborationmodels

Identifying the different professional per-spectives of the participating individuals

Identifying the types of informationneeded for the collaborative process

Identifying situations in which potentialconflicts may arise within the collaborativegroup

Identifying factors related to the resistanceof colleagues to participate fully in thedecision-making process andimplementation of an intervention

Identifying plans to assess specific agencypolicies and services

Identifying factors that affect the successof service coordination among communityand school services

Implementing strategies to assess students'needs for community agency services

Developing a sequential action plan fordelineating the steps, information needs,and timelines for the completion ofservices among agencies

Using strategics to determine theavailability of community services

Entering into equal working relationshipswith others for planning and developingstudents' programs

Implementing strategies to improvelistening skills

Defining the problem in behavioralterminology

1.96

2.42

2.33

2.82

2.51

2.30

2.48

2.48

2.17

2.48

2.83

2.89

2.47

1.04

1.08

1.06

1.10

1.10

1.01

1.01

1.06

1.06

1.15

1.17

1.03

1.00

2.09

2.66

2.53

3.01

2.54

2.37

2.49

2.47

2.31

2.80

3.06

3.04

2.41

.93

1.01

1.04

1.12

1.01

1.07

1.12

.98

1.00

.99

1.10

.92

.86

118

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Self-Perceived RatingsElementary Secondary

M SD M SD

Participating in the generation of possiblesolutions for a specific academic or socialproblem

Using interviewing strategies to define aspecific academic/social problem

Using paraphrasing techniques to assurethe other person is being correctlyunderstood

Using statements to provide, seek, andclarify information

Using questions to provide, seek, andclarify information

Using nonevaluative, behavior specificfeedback during collaborative interactions

Establishing mutual trust with otherindividuals

Implementing strategies to resolve con-flict situations in a collaborative group

Implementing strategies to manage theresistance of colleagues during thecollaborative process

Implementing an interpersonal problem-solving process to structure collaborationactivities

Using direct informal measures to clarifythe nature of an identified problem

Using direct informal measures to moni-tor the effectiveness of interventions

2.79

2.65

3.01

3.14

3.29

2.77

3.73

3.12

2.64

2.60

2.78

2.60

1.07

1.08

1.03

.95

.94

1.08

.99

1.14

1.07

1.11

1.14

1.13

2.79

2.67

3.06

3.14

3.31

2.77

3.79

3.37

2.69

2.57

2.79

2.64

1.00

1.07

1.08

.99

1.00

1.06

.91

1.05

1.06

1.00

.96

.98

Note: Rating scale 1 = none, 2 = average, 3 = superior.

dirough questions, and furnishing students with feedback have beenidentified as necessary components for an educator to engage ineffective instruction (Rosenshine and Stevens, 1986). Thus, theirratings may reflect their self-perceived professional competence tocommunicate with their students and colleagues.

The apparent self-perceived weaknesses in the collaboration skillsof preservice educators appear to be at the foundation of the collabo-ration process. First, the reported unfamiliarity With the interpersonal

119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

problem-solving process suggests that trainees have limited informa-tion about the nature and sequence of activities occurring within thecollaboration process. Second, the trainees appear to lack the knowl-edge base necessary to determine the informational needs of the col-laboration process and to identify appropriate strategies to acquireadditional information to facilitate the problem-solving process. Suchinformation suggests that preservice general educators may requiremore instruction in assessment approaches (e.g., functional analysis,O'Neil, Horner, Albin, Storey, and Sprague, 1990) and communica-tion strategies (e.g., use of statements and questions) that are valuablefor enhancing the information base for collaborative activities. Third,the preservice educators reported their competence for engaging inconflict resolution to be within the below average to average range ofskills. The minimal preparation of educators to utilize conflict resolu-tion skills may be the result of a conventional view of the role of aneducator in the school culture. Traditionally, the professional respon-sibilities of educators have included the completion of a specific set ofdelineated tasks that required little or no reliance on their colleagues'activities (Friend and Cook, 1996). A professional role that requiredfew collaboration activities among colleagues may not have warranteda strong background of skills in conflict resolution. Certainly, as thecentrality of the collaborative process in education increases, thedevelopment of conflict resolution skills will become necessary.

Finally, the lack of knowledge of general educators of the collab-orative process and activities occurring between school and commu-nity-based services may also be related to the traditional roles ofeducators in schools. Within the structure of the school, guidancecounselors typically are charged wiuS the responsibility of attendingto the educational planning and socio-emotional issues of students indie school, including die interaction and coordination of community-based services for students widi diverse needs (e.g., mental healthservices). The lack of professional preparation of collaboration skillsthat will help teachers interact and actively participate in die coordi-nation of community-based services for students may be aconsequence of a more traditional perspective of the role and respon-sibilities of elementary and secondary general educators. Certainly, asdie diversity of student populations increases, the preparation of edu-cators to participate in the comprehensive planning of educationalservices will be warranted.

The findings have four key implications for the preparation ofelementary and secondary general educators to be active participantsin the collaborative process. First, it appears that preservice educators

120

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

may require additional instruction in the foundation of the collabora-tive process. The various consultation and collaboration models, dif-ferent collaborative approaches (e.g., co-teaching, pre-referral teams),and interpersonal problem-solving processes are critical techniquesand pieces of information from which collaborative processes canbe initiated. Such skills could be developed through a set of cross-disciplinary (e.g., general and special education) courses that focuson the development of prerequisite skills such as a shared knowledgeand skill base, a common language, and communication skills.

Second, general education teacher preparation programs mayneed to focus on the roles of the participants in the collaborativeprocess, especially that of the general educator. Possible topics includeindividual participants' frames of reference, parity amongparticipants, shared decision-making and accountability processes,and the contribution of resources (e.g., time, skills). A possibleapproach to educating students about various perspectives may bethrough a "job-shadowing" approach in which educators observe andmonitor the activities of future collaboration partners. For example, apreservice general educator may want to observe and monitor theactivities of a special educator, speech-language clinician, schoolcounselor, social worker, or juvenile probation officer. Such activitiesmay facilitate the understanding of a particular colleagues frame ofreference.

A third preparation area is die extension of the collaborativeprocess to the community. As education professionals (Epstein et al.,1993; Knitzer, 1993; Peacock Hill Working Group, 1991; Skrtic andSailor, 1996) continue to advocate for the linkage of school and com-munity-based services and resources (e.g., school, mental health,health care, substance abuse, social service agencies), the role andresponsibilities of general educators in the design and coordination ofservices may be enhanced (Simpson et al., 1993). Educators' partici-pation in the process will be facilitated if they have a well-developedunderstanding of the interagency coordination process, includingprocedures for referring, accessing, and utilizing services for childrenand youth with diverse needs. Thus, general education teacher prepa-ration programs may need to identify approaches for developing anadequate knowledge and experience base to participate in interagencycoordination.

Finally, the emphasis on collaboration-based programming tomeet the needs of an educationally diverse student populationsuggests that educators will need to be highly skilled in their use ofcollaboration-based approaches. Given their current levels of knowl-

121

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

edge and skill, ¡t appears that teacher education programs may needto review their instructional approaches for the development ofcollaboration knowledge and skills. One approach that may need tobe considered is the development of cross-disciplinary collaboration-based teams of general and special education teacher educators toserve as instructional models for the coordination and delivery ofacademic instruction for preservice general and special educators.The delivery of courses by teams of educators gives students anopportunity to witness the coordination of planning and deliveryefforts of educators that is often only described for students in theirprofessional coursework. Findings from previous research suggest thatpreservice education students participating in a team-taught courserecognize the arrangement as an appropriate and valid professionalmodel of team teaching. In addition, the preservice educatorsbelieved the arrangement added to the depth and breadth of theuniversity course (Winn and Messenheimer-Young, 1995).

References

Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J. J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A modelfor general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2),17-22.

Cannon, G. S., Idol, L, & West, J. F. (1992). Educating students with mild handi-caps in general classrooms: Essential teaching practices for general and special educators.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(5), 300-317.

Dieker, L A., & Barnett, C. A. (1996). Effective co-teaching. Teaching ExceptionalChildren, 29(1), 5-7.

Epstein, M. H., Nelson, C. M., Polsgrove, L., Coutinho, M., Cumblad, C., &Quinn, K. (1993). A comprehensive community-based approach to serving students withemotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1,127-133.

Foley, R. (1994). Collaboration activities and competencies of special educatorsserving students with behavior disorders. Special Services in the School, 8(2), 69-90.

Foley, R. (1995, November). Issues in preparing special education professionals toengage in community-school partnerships. Poster presentation for the 18th AnnualConference of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,Honolulu, HI.

Foley, R., & Mundschenk, N. A. (1995). Secondary school general educators' collabo-ration activities and competencies: A status report. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Foley, R., Mundschenk, N., & Miller, S. R. (1993). Collaboration: Self-perceivedknowledge, skills, and activities of rural special educators of students with behavioral dis-orders. In R. B. Rutherford, Jr. & S. Mathur (Eds.), Severe behavior disorders of childrenand youth (Vol. 16, pp. 111-119). Reston, VA: Council for Children with BehaviorDisorders.

Friend, M. (1984). Consultation skills for resource teachers. Learning DisabilityQuarterly, 7(3), 246-250.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1996). Interactions: Collaboration skills for schoolprofessionals (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

122

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Hamachek, D. (1969). Characteristics of good teachers and implications for teachereducation. Phi Delia Kappan, 50, 341-345.

Idol, L., & West, J. F. (1987). Consultation in special education (Pan II): Trainingand practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(8), 474-494.

Johnson, L.J., & Pugach, M. C. (1991). Peer collaboration: Accommodating stu-dents with mild learning and behavior problems. Exceptional Children, 57(5), 454-461.

Johnson, L J., Pugach, M. C., & Cook, R. (1993). Peer collaboration as a means tofacilitate collegial support to reduce teacher isolation and facilitate classroom problem-solving in rural areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 12(2), 21-26.

Knitzer, J. (1993). Children's mental health policy: Challenging the future. Journalof Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 18-16.

Laycock, V. K., Gable, R. A., & Korinck, L. (1991). Alternative structures for col-laboration in the delivery of special services. Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 15-18.

MacIver, D. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1991). Responsive practices in the middle grades:Teacher teams, advisory groups, remedial instruction, and school transition programs.American Journal of Education, 99, 587-622.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners all: A call forinclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.

O'Neil, R., Homer, R., Albin, R., Storey, K., & Spraguc, J. (1990). Functionalanalysis of problem behavior: A practical assessment guide. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Paul, J., Epanchin, B., Rosselli, H., & Duchnowski, A. (1996). The transformationof teacher education and special education: Work in progress. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 17(5), 310-322.

Peacock Hill Working Group. (1991). Problems and promises in special educationand related services for children and youth with emotional or behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 16(4), 299-313.

Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1995). Unlocking expertise among classroomteachers through structured dialogue: Extending research on peer collaboration.Exceptional Children, 62(2), 101-110.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.

Skrtic, T. M., & Sailor, W. (1996). School-linked services integration: Crisis andopportunity in the transition to postmodern society. Remedial and Special Education,17(5), 271-283.

Simpson, R. L, Whelan, R. J., & Zabel, R. H. (1993). Special education personnelpreparation in the 21st century: Issues and strategies. Remedial and Special Education,14(2), 7-22.

West, J. F., & Cannon, G. S. (1988). Essential collaborative consultationcompetencies for regular and special educators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1),56-63, 68.

West, J. F., & Idol., L. (1990). Collaborative consultation in the education ofmildly handicapped and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education, 11(1), 22-31.

Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A sharedresponsibility. Exceptional Children, 52(5), 411-416.

Winn, J. A., & Messenheimer-Young, T. (1995). Team teaching at the universitylevel: What we have learned. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18(4), 223-229.

123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

32 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014